You are on page 1of 2

DeHavilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter

NACA 63A51 mod

NACA 63A516 mod

NACA 653-218
A-5

CASA 212 AVIOCAR

DORNIER 228

E421
NACA 63-421
Antonov An-28
ATR 72

TsAGI R-II-14 (14%) TsAGI R-II-14 (14%)


RA 1843 (NACA 43018 mod)

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-28#Especificaciones_.28An-28.29
http://m-selig.ae.illinois.edu/ads/aircraft.html
http://www.aerofiles.com/airfoils.html

Maximum lift coefficient depends upon the wing geometry, airfoil shape, flap geometry and span, leadingedge slot or slat geometry, Reynolds number, surface texture, and interference from other parts of the aircraft
such as the fuselage, nacelles, or pylons. The trim force provided by the horizontal tail will increase or reduce
the maximum lift, depending upon the direction of the trim force. If the propwash or jetwash impinges upon
the wing or the flaps, it will also have a major influence upon maximum lift during power-on conditions.
Most aircraft use a different flap setting for takeoff and landing. During landing, the flaps will be deployed the
maximum amount to provide the greatest lift and drag. However, for takeoff the maximum flap angle will
probably cause more drag than desirable for rapid acceleration and climb, so the flaps will be deployed to
about half the maximum angle. Therefore, the maximum lift coefficient for landing will be greater than for
takeoff. Typically, the takeoff maximum lift coefficient is about 80% that of the landing value.
For a wing of fairly high aspect ratio (over about 5), the maximum lift coefficient will be approximately 90%
of the airfoil maximum lift coefficient at the same Reynolds number, provided that the lift distribution is
nearly elliptical. However, if partial-span flaps are used, their deflection will introduce a large, discontinuous
twist into the wing geometry that changes the lift distribution, and thus the induced downwash, causing the
effective angle of attack to vary at different span stations.